Home

by **StrangeQuark** on Fri Jul 30, 2004 11:35 am

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/ ... 84,00.html

I have never been able to understand how someone could hold the life of a mouse to be just as valuable as a human. I have (very occasionally) been accused of hypocrisy by vegetarian friends for being fond of dogs and cats but eating meat from sheep and cattle. I see no contradiction. I simply don't place equal value on all animal life.

A sea sponge has no heart, no eyes and no brain but is considered an animal. We have no more reason to suppose it has thoughts or feelings than we do for a bath sponge. Why should the former have any rights? I don't imagine either to be very tasty but if a sea sponge is delicious why should eating it be worse than eating a cabbage?

Of course I don't want animals to suffer unnecessary pain in a lab but I would happiy sacrifice the UK population of white rats if it meant finding a cure for AIDS. It is maybe also worth remembering that the mice and rats were bred for the labs. They owe their lives (such as they are) to testing.

(In case you were wondering, no I don't hate vegetarians.)

by **Haunted** on Fri Jul 30, 2004 12:47 pm

Yeah, this thing called 'the food chain' clearly shows that us sapiens are above everything else

by **Prophet Tenebrae** on Fri Jul 30, 2004 1:13 pm

Animal rights extremists are in my opinion, terrorists by any other name and should be dealt with as such.

The new measures being brought in are good but really, it should have been done years ago because quite frankly.

by **Haunted** on Fri Jul 30, 2004 1:23 pm

Animal rights extremists get right on my tits. Most of them never get charged with anything even though theyre causing millions worth of criminal damage and terrorising innocent people. The new laws should also apply to those crop destroyers aswell

by **Prophet Tenebrae** on Fri Jul 30, 2004 3:03 pm

I agree. Just because people disagree, it doesn't give them some divine right to criminal damage.

Full reparitions should be made to the injured parties and more than just a slap on the wrist should be handed out. Although, I feel that prison isn't the answer... unless we can make prison itself a less expensive affair.

by **Haunted** on Fri Jul 30, 2004 3:13 pm

They should be given re-education classes

by **benedict** on Fri Jul 30, 2004 3:16 pm

i think in an evolutionary way we should use use our humanity to decide. afterall the rats of today are the humans of the future. well perhaps not but some apes may have an argument. if we ourselves evolved from amoebas & such then maybe we should show at least some basic humanity to our our animal kind.

i have no great problem with the idea of killing animals. we step on insects every day for a start. i'd even say killing humans is justified in some cases. it's in our nature. however, we do many of us feel empathy for other animals & i think it's natural to treat other animals with a degree of humanity.

it seems to an extent that we're taking advantage of animals to help ourselves. i'd rather a few thousand humans die from natural illnesses if it spared the suffering of animals by rather unnatural means. this being perhaps a weak argument in that natural is a such an undefined word in this context. i think in this case i can but express my opinions rather than necessarily try & convince anyone of them.

i think it's very much a balance, & animal testing, for people as a whole, seems to be within the blurry boundaries of right & wrong.

i myself would like to see science slow down a bit & try to find ways of curing without resorting to victimisation of rodents & such like.

by **KateBush** on Fri Jul 30, 2004 9:36 pm

Did you know though that according to the new laws even if you're not a terrorist and you're just standing outside a lab peacefully protesting, you can be arrested and treated like one? Do you think that's fair?

i don't condone violence of any type (I am a pacifist) but I do believe in free speech, and this is what's being jeopardised by the new laws. I know that some animal rights protesters are more extreme than others but surely they shouldn't all be tarred with the same brush.

What would you think if people protesting against top up fees were arrested and treated like anti-government anarchists? It's a similar scenario that we're looking at here.

by **Guest** on Fri Jul 30, 2004 9:40 pm

[s]StrangeQuark wrote on 13:35, 30th Jul 2004:
I have (very occasionally) been accused of hypocrisy by vegetarian friends for being fond of dogs and cats but eating meat from sheep and cattle.

Pigs on the other hand are more intelligent than dogs or cats.

As for testing as long as it is only for medical purposes and that there is no unnecesary re-testing over and over again then of course it must be done. Anyone who has seen a family member of friend die or suffer from a debilitating disease knows that

I don't understand people that "stand up" for animals by trying to intimidate or hurt fellow humans. Ever so slightly hypocritical and they do their cause far more harm than good.

by **benedict** on Fri Jul 30, 2004 11:57 pm

'Anyone who has seen a family member of friend die or suffer from a debilitating disease knows that

'

difficult to uphold this line of thought. even arguing upon principles which i hold seems very slightly out of line. if so then i take at least a step towards apology here.

but... surely it's slightly selfish to expect the suffering of animals to cure your loved one? can families not learn to deal with things & accept what is to be without such harm being done elsewhere? i would like science to solve things without such measures being considered.

nobody i know has even died from cancer so i'm perhaps in a naive position. i can only guess that if a family member was to die, when rigorous torture of animals could have saved them, then i'd accept the death for what it is. a ntural death.

i doubt there are too many humans who have survived, only on the torture of these animals, who actually have some gratitude for the animals who have unwittingly sacrificed their lives.

by **Saki** on Sat Jul 31, 2004 6:52 am

[s]KateBush wrote on 23:36, 30th Jul 2004:
Did you know though that according to the new laws even if you're not a terrorist and you're just standing outside a lab peacefully protesting, you can be arrested and treated like one? Do you think that's fair?

As I understand it, what's being made illegal is protesting outside the homes of scientists. I think this is reasonable - it's just plain intimidation tactics to have protests outside family homes. Protests outside workplaces are still fine.

by **KateBush** on Sat Jul 31, 2004 7:09 am

[s][b]Saki wrote on 08:52, 31st Jul 2004:
Protests outside workplaces are still fine.

Believe that and you'll believe anything! Anything considered remotely 'intimidating' means you'll be arrested- so if you're shouting outside a lab you're a terrorist? And what about professors who live on university premises (quite common at O and C)--are people terrorists for happening to demonstrate near where they live then?

Benedict--I'm a vegan mate, but even I can't condone your naive point of view. Are you seriously saying that people should just think "Oh well, my loved one's going to die, never mind...there might be a cure, but i wouldn't want to hurt a little mouse so I'll just accept fate."?!?!?!?!

On the other hand, I am opposed to medical research on animals quite simply because it doesn't work...in 1979 the BMJ reported a 'cure' for arthritis--it worked wonders on the mice they were testing on, it didn't just arrest the development of arthritis, it stopped it from happening in the first place...they gave it to humans...it KILLED them! If animal testing could provide a cure for cancer, AIDS, MS, Parkinsons, then of COURSE the benefits THEN might be said to outweigh the costs because millions if not billions of people would be helped. But there STILL are no cures for these illnesses. And testing on animals has been proven to be inaccurate, time and time again. How can the body of a mouse or rabbit reflect what would happen to a human? It's ridiculous.

If you ask me, medical testing should be carried out on humans. And if it does involve suffering, why not test it on murderers, rapists and paedophiles? And people who beat up little old ladies? They DESERVE punishment, and may actually provide useful insight into human reactions to drugs, unlike innocent animals who were just minding their own business and don't deserve to suffer in the way that they do?

by **Prophet Tenebrae** on Sat Jul 31, 2004 9:03 am

For some accusing others of being naive, Kate you're a trifle full of it yourself. Science isn't about instant results and I think that if you think that scientists are testing on animals just to get erroneous results, you should try talking to some research scientists. Although of course what Benedict said does seem to show a total lack of empathy.

I don't see anything wrong with detering protestors what amounts to an intimidating nuisance, which is encouraging foreign companies to put their money elsewhere. If animal rights protestors can £ for £ replace the investment though - feel free.

Testing on prisoners... well, that's something I'd be more inclined towards. However, that's obviously going to throw up a lot of ethical questions - and obviously with the justice system being what it is, you'd stand a good chance of testing on innocents. Besides, for someone who claims to be a pacifist, it verges rather close to cruel and unusual punishment - don't you think?

by **Kibet** on Sat Jul 31, 2004 9:04 am

[s]KateBush wrote on 09:09, 31st Jul 2004:
" They DESERVE punishment, "

that crazed look in your eyes when you typed that scares me

*huddles into foetal position*

by **Saki** on Sat Jul 31, 2004 9:10 am

[s]KateBush wrote on 09:09, 31st Jul 2004:
[s][b]Saki wrote on 08:52, 31st Jul 2004:[i]
Protests outside workplaces are still fine.

Believe that and you'll believe anything! Anything considered remotely 'intimidating' means you'll be arrested- so if you're shouting outside a lab you're a terrorist? And what about professors who live on university premises (quite common at O and C)--are people terrorists for happening to demonstrate near where they live then?
[/i]

With respect, you're talking bollocks. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3937435.stm gives details of the legislation. How exactly are you taking that to mean anything intimidating will be illegal? And how exactly does this state that protesting outside a lab is going to be illegal.

As for professors on university premises - a) it's not actually very common at all at Oxford/Cambridge (and I grew up in C and went to O so I do know what I'm talking about) and b) when it does happen, tutors live in _college_ or university owned houses out of college and colleges don't have labs in them.

There are _no_ new powers introduced for non-violent protests outside places of work. You'll only be arrested if you protest outside a family home or if you use violence or if you stalk employees. That's fine by me. The extremists give the rest of us a bad name.

by **KateBush** on Sat Jul 31, 2004 11:18 am

[s]Prophet Tenebrae wrote on 11:03, 31st Jul 2004:
Testing on prisoners... well, that's something I'd be more inclined towards. However, that's obviously going to throw up a lot of ethical questions - and obviously with the justice system being what it is, you'd stand a good chance of testing on innocents. Besides, for someone who claims to be a pacifist, it verges rather close to cruel and unusual punishment - don't you think?

Cruel or unusual? British Universities tested medicines on prisoners of war during WW2! Of course it would be cruel or unusual if people were innocent, and I do accept what you're saying about innocent people being punished, that would be wrong...but the people who HAVE committed wrongs and owned up to it- like that bloke who murdered those 4 people in yorkshire a couple of weeks ago- surely they DESERVE punishment. If their punishment (i.e- being detained) is at cost to the taxpayer shouldn't we try and get something USEFUL and constructive from them?

And I'm not looking for instant cures, but for how long now have mediecal researchers been trying to cure the diseases I mentioned, without success? I'm sure there must be a better way than the hit and miss methods involved in animal testing (see my arthritis medication example in my earlier post)

by **KateBush** on Sat Jul 31, 2004 11:19 am

[s]Kibet wrote on 11:04, 31st Jul 2004:
[s]KateBush wrote on 09:09, 31st Jul 2004:[i]
" They DESERVE punishment, "

that crazed look in your eyes when you typed that scares me

*huddles into foetal position*
[/i]

You should see me when I do my *SCARY EYES*---I can seeeeeeeeee you! (joke)

by **Kibet** on Sat Jul 31, 2004 12:25 pm

[s]KateBush wrote on 13:19, 31st Jul 2004:
You should see me when I do my *SCARY EYES*---I can seeeeeeeeee you! (joke)

I just assumed you were on the premium line for http://www.Kibet's_webcam.com

by **Haunted** on Sat Jul 31, 2004 1:03 pm

So once someone has been convicted of a crime then the words 'cruel and unusual' lose their meaning?

Wasnt there a certain time and place when it was a crime to be a jew? they werent being subjected to cruel and unusual punishment, no, they were being put to good use eh?

Personnaly I'm all for huming testing, on volunteers, but never forcefully on anyone, convict, psychopath or otherwise

by **The Cellar Bar** on Sat Jul 31, 2004 4:12 pm

the purpose of a prison sentence is to a) remove an offender's rights of freedoms to move around freely, work or otherwise participate in "ordinary" society. And b) to protect the rest of society from them for as long as society feels necessary.

It does not however entitle society to brutalise or to punish that offender beyond those elements. Prisoners are not "beyond" all laws and rights simply because they have been convicted of an infraction of one. The cost to society therefore is one that we accept as a cost of having a prison system which insists on locking up offenders for crimes, for instance, which are not violent. Those costs would be less if we reduced the number of custodial sentences we impose. 30% of the prison population right now comprise those who have failed to pay their TV licences of parking fines or other similar penalties. But bearing those costs does not - or at least - should not allow us to even contemplate getting "value for money out of them.

The other point would be that given the centralising, authoritarian essence of Bliar right now, this conceivably is that infamous "thin end of the wedge". From curfews for teenagers, to removal of trial by jury, to reducing the number of jury challenges the defence can make while making the prosecution challenges unlimited, to night-time courts sessions, to allowing the prosecution to appeal "lenient" sentences to the draconian ID cards that he has in mind, we are seeing the erosion of a large number of our civil liberties.

Whether or not, any of us has any reservations of animal rights activists, there are already offences that could cover thier behaviour. To introduce a blanket notion of it being a crime in itself to protest, if its acknowledged and allowed, simply allows more smart arses, further on down the line, to extend it to other areas. Like protesting illegal wars for instance. Or the visits of Heads of State with blood on their hands but fat wallets. Or any other form of protest outside of the 20 seconds we're given every 4 years to vote.

Home

TheSinner.net

The Tofu Taliban

The Tofu Taliban

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Who is online